The Fairness Doctrine?

In coming days, many of us will start to hear increasing clamor about the so-called Fairness Doctrine.

Opponents say that the 1940's era rule that was repealed by the FCC in the 1980's will abridge free speech by forcing broadcasters to include competing assessments to balance their coverage of any given topic. Specifically, they claim and fear that the doctrine will compel broadcasters, especially popular talk radio hosts, to include content (opinions, analysis, etc.) they disagree with but comply with the government's standard of counterbalance.

Supporters claim the rule should be employed to combat what has become a fundamentally unfair and unjust political propaganda apparatus. The argument has many forms but one common one is that media consolidation in the hands of a surprisingly small number of corporate owners has homogenized media content and suppressed substantive competition from divergent analysts, especially if they don't conform to a bombastic presentation style.

As is usual in politics, both sides have a legitimate point and many of the important issues will probably remain unaddressed.

But let's try to get a lay of the land here. First, this doctrine does in fact put speech under government control. That should be troubling to us all even if it does allay concerns about the role of talk radio. Second, the doctrine is being resurrected as a political tool against what has become the media outreach efforts of the Republican apparatus. Now, these two facts alone should warrant our opposition to the proposal. Democrats should pursue other means of eroding Republican political power.

What is not being discussed is just as important. Media consolidation is a worrying trend with many outlet and broadcast types being owned and operated by a smaller number of groups. So, while the actual outlets (satellite radio, traditional radio, cable TV, etc.) proliferate, ownership and content are becoming disturbingly homogenized. The effect is that in a quest for profits, too much content is controlled by too few. Freedom thrives at the intersection of divergent analyses, and media consolidation suppresses that tendency of freedom, that cornerstone of democracy. Additionally, the faith that the goals of profits and substantive public debate are convergent is at best woefully optimistic and at worst willfully misinformed.

Additionally, sensationalist, bombastic, controversial broadcasters grab the attention of media consumers with all of the appeal of hard-hitting journalism but none of the rigor. The resultant product is an all-too-common regurgitation of political party talking points in the name of corporate profits. All the while the regulatory function of the FCC to act in the public's interest is lost. So, the principle freedom of the Bill of Rights is being employed for profits and not public interest.

Does that imply that broadcasters such as Limbaugh and Hannity don't serve the public? No. In fact, they do, just not primarily. Having opinion sharing programs is good. The problem is that their goal is listenership and listenership is driven by style and presentation rather than sober fact finding (e.g. C-SPAN ratings aren't really competitive with, well, anyone's). I am reminded of an example from Hannity's radio program In the wake of the Iraq invasion and faced with lack of evidence of WMD, Sen. Rick Santorum went on Hannity to audaciously declare that the U.S. actually did find WMD. Hannity offered no critical questioning. Of course, Santorum was refuted (painfully if the number of reports documenting the lack of evidence is used as the measure). The style of that interview led one to believe that the truth of WMD's being found was being suppressed, but the facts of that exchange pointed to Sen. Santorum's obvious wrongness, if not prevarication.

There are of course other related issues. For example, where were the concerns over free speech when the public, peaceful, political demonstrations have been relegated to government controlled "free speech zones," well away from where anyone can see or interact with them? Where were Republicans' outrage over the use of gerrymandering and political appointments to advance party agenda?

Let's be frank, the Democrats are willing to infringe on our civil liberties to advance party power, but to about the same degree as their Republican counterparts.

A real "fairness doctrine" should demand accountability for this type of political machination from whatever its source. Shame on the Democrats willing to suppress free speech and shame on the Republicans willing to exploit it.